So I was wondering about how the world would look if we were to have a one world government. The world would have just one government with complete control over all nations. This would obviously require so much hard work for it to ever come true but I believe that we could do it, if we joined together as one. There wouldn't need to be countries as we would have only one flag. We would all live together as one. We would be greater, richer and smarter. What do you people think?

And the problem is? There would be nothing wrong with a government to have full control, would there? As long as they make choices which is for the good of the people, and corporations, then what is the issue?

And people could still speak up if they wanted to. It's not like it would be an evil, fascist group, which would kill anyone who stands up, would it? It'd be a democracy. You'd still be able to vote on things. and have a say on things.

Just because a government doesn't have it building in a certain place doesn't mean that it can't stop crimes. What you said is silly. The government doesn't deal with serial killers the police do. So the police will deal with the issue in that country. That's like me saying because the government is based in London they can't deal with problems in Leeds?

& yes other countries do have different needs to others. But the role of a one world government would be to attend to these needs as best as possible.

It'd be good if countries from all over the world could vote in one person to represent their country. Then whoever they vote in goes into the one world government. There wouldn't be 'one ruler' it'd be a group of people. A new world order.

In Australia things work quite oddly. The middle of the land is very very hot. Where as the outskirts are much cooler. So people tend to live around the outside. Their needs as you can see from that will be very different from the needs of that of Britain which doesn't need as much help keeping cool.

With a one world government the only thing you could really say to solve these mixtures is that there will be a department in the government one for each country and each one is supposed to meet its national needs.

But that kind of defeats the idea of it being a one world goverment doesn't it?

Basically what you're saying is wrong. A OWG would only have to be based in one place, it wouldn't need to be based in several other locations. & it most certainly wouldn't defeat the object. It would be a good, stable idea, which would most certainly take years and years to implement but it would be worth it.

It would defeat the idea of a OWG if there were departments for each country. Because when you think about it the departments may not have the TITLE "government" but they match the definiton dont they?
"the group of people with the authority to govern a country or state; a particular ministry in office."-definition of government

The departments match this definition dont they? So there you are.

Plus without the idea of these departments then the government for the whole world won't be good. If it was just one group of people in charge of running the whole world it wouldn't fit would it?

As I have explained.

Taking the example of currency.

Each country has different needs for currency don't they? Each bank is different and thus needs different things.

If there was only one group in charge of all these banks they would have to fit ideas into all the banks needs. And what one bank might need the other bank might not. It would be so much work.

What's more convenient? One group to look after all the banks in the world or one group for each bank?

As you can see it'll be a bad idea if option two is not taken. And if option two IS taken it does defeat the idea of being a OWG because while it may have the title of "department" it has the definition of a government. So it more or less for that reason IS a government.

Take a look at the European Union. They are basically taking over the world because they will be soon coming out of Europe, as they make other countries join them. They have changed the currency for many countries in Europe, they make many, many laws & they have been having talks about an EU army. So a one world currency would work. Along side a 'one world army.' It is a brilliant idea, which should be implemented sooner rather than later.

Perhaps a one world currency isn't such a bad idea but there would be no need for a one world army seeing as we aren't going to be invaded by Mars or something.

Plus what about power addicts?

Thinking about world war two for example. If there had been your idea of a one world government the world would be in a worse state.

People like Hitler will always exist. Those who want power and won't rest until they get it. When these power maniacs come into power the only reason we can stop them is because we have something of more or equal power.

For example we could only defeat the Nazi Party and end the Holocaust because we had a British Government which was matched in power to Hitler. If we didn't have that we wouldn't have the ability to beat him would we?

Things like that aren't only happening in those days no no. There are many Hitlers in the world. People always come into power.

And when these power maniacs do the only reason we can stop them is because we have equal power.

Supposing one of these power maniacs got to be the one world government. We do NOT have equal power.

There is no equal power. There is only one government remember? and this government has all the power in the world. For this reason we have nothing of equal power. Thus the Hitler of this century wins. A OWG for that reason could do some very very big harm and might possibly lead to the end of humanity.

I think we are taking the idea of the one world government to the kind of extreme and unrealistic level. The closest we might get to one world government is extending the authority and importance of United Nations.
We could restructure the UN facilities and craft the "One World Government or Council" out of said organisation.

Countries would stay as they are. Of course they would officially cease to exist (along with the borders) but the cultures and regional governments (answering to UN in one form or another) would remain in place. It's foolish to assume just because One World Government would be formed all of the diversity, culture and local laws around the world would vanish over night. The chances are, average citizens would not even notice that something like One World Government exists until many years after its founding. Creating OWG (One World Government, gonna use this shortcut from now on since the word is kidna long :D) would be a massive responsibility which would call for decentralised power. In other words, decision making would never belong to one person and instead would be voted in by some sort of democratic council. However OWG would most likely call for a new type of political system not yet ever seen or tested before, a liquid type of society which might switch from socialist to capitalist over time in regards to the current need.

Stabilising the world and redistribution of wealth among poorer nations would be another OWG concern which would require total and I mean TOTAL 100% co-operation within the OWG members. Such cooperation is not possible and the conflicts are bound to happen and therefore creating something as OWG would take a very long time and several generations educated to carry on the project of uniting the world. I would estimate it would take around 3-5 generations of citizen to fully establish a working One World Government.

The problem with a one world government is that power corrupts, and infinite power corrupts infinitely. Individual nation's governments can't govern their land effectively, harming businesses and the general population with absurd taxes and stupid laws, and you expect a world government to be better? One of the great things about the U.S. is that if you don't like the laws of the state you live in, you can move to a location with more favorable laws. The same thing, to some extent, is true with the world. Another great thing about America is that we have a Constitution to reinforce our rights, with the unique idea that they're given to us by our Creator (or, for Darwinists, "nature") and not by man. Foreign countries don't have this distinct advantage, and creating a universal government would destroy both of these ideas, leaving everyone open to oppression and voicelessness. If you can't speak your mind, there is tyranny. And to enforce your right to speak your mind, you need to be armed. If you can't arm yourself (many countries have already banned firearms to some extent), if the universal government decides to outlaw firearms, then how can you enssure freedom?

Reasons for voting decision: It was a close argument, but I elected to vote for Con since they actually introduced new points, while Pro simply refuted Con's arguments or repeated his debate topic without backing it up. Their grammar was about on par, and neither used sources. Finally, Pro tended to make generalizations like "What you're saying is silly" or "What you're saying is wrong" without explaining why. Con at least attempted to back up his arguments.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.